Kev2go

Flares is Kinda of OT for the bug report thread, but i can easily point out Your attempt at satire post would of actually held some weight if what you implied was actually true. You wont find M130 countermeasure dispensers ( and associated control panel) on any US army huey in any time period. IF it did there would of been countless photographs of them being equipped with such in combat service plus more importantly referenced in primary source documents like manuals. Anyways its a shame no EGI CDI or An/AAR47 IR missile warning from a Uh1N slapped onto a UH1H, because " its a still a huey or something",

Whilst i agree it would be nice to have a properly slick huey, and still mount M60's without requiring the gunship configuration . However the wire strike protection system appears to be universal if your looking at 1980s era ( or later) hueys. The OP pictured huey is clearly an earlier production/ Vietnam configuration UH1H given it lacks RWR "blisters" for mounting APR39 sensors on the front cone section of the airframe, lacks the windows behind the pilot.

i hope the CH47F we have has datalink modem. IRRC ED had said they are basing it off a 2007 Ch47F. I could only find a 2011 publication, So im not sure what the earlier 2007 Ch47F didn't have, if its same avionics and only a minor software or flight control system upgrade. Now the system the Ch47F has is not a proper datalink with automatic real time updates like Link 16, but from my understanding it works similar to the Longbow IDM.

i would point out that the issue with huey besides needing a cockpit and external model facelift, is that it ideally to also have multiple variations of the Uh1. Im not talking UH1N since its a different service aircraft, but just from the single engine army hueys. The long bodies Hueys ( Bell 205 aka Uh1D and Uh1H) to my knowledge were never used in gunship configuration. Only the bell 204 ; the Uh1B/C/M ever saw the forward facing miniguns, rocket pods, and thier associated weapons aiming systems in US service. Only some foreign operators adopted them on UH1H like the Aussies. As usefull having flares is on the huey, I am also not familiar what source material was used to give the Uh1H countermeasure dispensers because that also is not referenced in any US army based manuals nor the Aussie Bushranger manual. According to document ( work order ) MWO 55-1520-210-30-48 dated 1980 , the AN/APN 209 Radar Altimeter seemed to be exclusive to the Uh1V ( dedicated medivac that derived from Uh1H). The work order states that any Uh1H's installed with AN/APN 209 shall be redesignated to UH1V. There is also other configuration for the Uh1H itself looking at the 1988 publication ( with revisions up to 1999) like Doppler GPS navigation based system, or alternatively AN/ASn175 GPS system with data cartridge, or even optional AN/APR39 RWR installation, but from what i gather APR39's were seemingly installed in medivac configuration Uh1V, rather then the standard UH1H. So to summarize, the Uh1H we had in DCS was a franken Huey to begin with that had a mish mash of features from various Huey models and from various eras, thus would at the very least necessitate to split the module to a minimum of 2 versions. A UH1C/M for gunship configuration, and the UH1H/V for Slick and medivac roles. A simpler alternative is to have 2 Uh1H versions. Australian "bushranger" UH1H to allow gunship configuration, and a then a US army based Uh1H pure slick that would have some more modern features like the GPS suite to differentiate from the Australian based Uh1H.

There aught to be. With a focus being on expanding Utility roles in DCS, with CH47F and C130 modules, maybe its a time to give UH1H a cockpit and external model refresh. That and a updated Damage model. IF the huey has a hard landing it has a tendency to blow up, whereas with AH64, i have survived hard landings ( by that meaning avoiding spontaneous combustion) that would have evaporated a huey.

yeah UH1H needs a cockpit and exterior model refresh. black shark has gone through multiple updates and the A10 had been got a 2.0 update in recent years. Uh1N is different enough where it needs to be its own module. As an aside what utility helos in general need is to have visibility/ animation of seated troops in the interior. Its not really immersive having troops load up into your helo, disappear and be invisible inside the helicopter.

It is still fictitious in the context of being in a UH1H. The manual you reference TM 55-1520-219-10 is for the Uh1B, not UH1H. I had no reason to ever think at looking at UH1B manual considering we have UH1H model. US army Uh1H manual didnt have any reference to any sighting system period given they didn't seem to use the long body hueys as gunships, but the Australian UH1H manual ( the so called Bushranger) did. Hence thats what i posted, which was the different pattern reticule that still had the same designation XM60/M60 But this just demonstrates why there sometimes aught to be multiple variations of a given aircraft included within a module, to avoid creating a franken piece that has a mish mash of features from various models that a specific model didn't have IRL. Or i guess it did, but just not in US military service.

its unfortunate its not the 9.13. lacking a jammer is less the ideal ( even the current less the stellar simulation of ECM) , when all other contemporary opponents have them, and as pointed out some 9.13's were modded with R77's which would also make an aircraft more competitive against Fox 3' carrying birds. However what else can be said then " it is what it is". This is most capable soviet/russian aircraft ED can simulate, so this is what the community has to settle for. I hope that at least R27ER/ET are compatible with the 9.12 and it wont just be the shorter ranged 27R/T.

You dont get very far on vipers internal fuel alone, even less so if you have such draggy loadouts of taking both Triple mavericks and Triple Mk80 series bombs. This is only something youd ever use in a single player situation if your taking off from an airfield and have some practice targets on a range next to your airfield. ON the Hornet you can still take a centerline tank for extra gas and still have 2 pylons on the wings left for A/G ordinance. The Viper on the other you could take that small centerline tank, since its better then just going in on that tiny internal fuel capacity, but given the Viper doesn't have an Internal jammer, if necessary you are compelled to take centerline for the ECM pod, which in turn only leaves you necessity for 2 EFT's which also means further limiting its A/G ordinance carry. SO in short the F/A18 is more flexible and carries more when you take practical considerations like additional fuel for Mission distance and Loiter time. Not really the the same dilema for A10 or Strike Eagle pilots.

ED has made some improvements in their radars as well even if it isn't razbam tier. . I noticed that detection ranges will vary depending on RCS and a % chance of detection will increase the closer you are.

. Razbams Radar modeling on the M2K and now the Apg70 has set a new benchmark for radar simulation in DCS , Heatblur is now setting a new benchmark for RWR simulation with An/APR46 for the F4E, and they said they were willing to go open source with thier code to ED, so a similar baseline can be applied to other RWR 's on other modules. i think once these 2 things complete the prerequisite is already there to move on to modeling more authentic Electronic warfare, jammers etc.

Not that i wouldnt like it, but ID be even more happy having a C7 on a F15E ( or a potential FF F15C). given it actually has a radar with a long enough detection range to take advantage of better missiles.

To clarify im not complaining at all about Razbam not allowing an options to remove CFT's from the F15E. I fully understand and respect the decision to not do so. I just understand why people would want those removable and without the ability to remove them why it can be used to help build a stronger case for a FF F15C, for those who are A2A oriented. Although im personally not holding my breath for the more recent interations of a "modern" F15C ( the AESA radars, APG63v2 or AGP63V3, and the second MFD) even if tomorrow it was confirmed that ED or a 3rd party has committed to a F15C project.

Same can be said with the SE. F15e's in recent years have also been upgraded with aesa radars, which are in turn expected to be much better in range detection besides the other benefits that AESA's offer over mech array. F15AE Also currently in the process of getting a newer EW suite originating from the f15ex retrofitted into the frame as well. One the things I noticed in dcs F15E is the apg70 is able to maintain locks in STT much better at targets attempting to notch. That matters too. Maybe it's just razbams radar modeling though. Not sure how true this is real life relative apg68 or 73. Exactly it doesn't need to just like f22 was excused for not having jhmcs or aim9x. That given Its stealth and radar combination it wouldn't need to be put in a situation where it needs to use a helmet cued high offboresight dogfight missile

Sounds like you described the f15ex that's is replacing part of the the f15c fleet .light grey airframes are no longer built but more advanced derivative of the f15e frame is.

conclusions i made from a paper i read https://etd.auburn.edu/xmlui/handle/10415/595 argues officers who were veterans of the lessons learned in Vietnam were more important drivers in air forces culture and doctrine change, then a group of theorists whose vision for the perfect fighter were dated for 70s timeframe. Ultimately an emphasis on training, armament reliability maintence, plus advancements in technology is what was more important. again E/M is an important consideration for air superiority fighter design especially for its time, but not at the expense of other things which the fighter mafia couldn't help themselves with. Evident that thier ideal fighter would of been a even simpler F16A.

I never called the f15 5th gen. I only used 5th gen as example of how Meta of fighter designed changed. That it started being less about flight characteristics of having s super fighter that and more about avionics. I use Flanker as an example because this was the best fighter redforce has to offer from the late cold war timeframe. And in DCS in general. I mean there is nothing stopping a f15 from fighting other teen series but in actual combat scenarios it's unlikely to be facing off in a shooting war against aircraft that mostly allied nations operate

The fighter mafia lost any remaining credibility after the gulf war. Although Sprey might be seen as the most vocal critic, You can't be taken seriously if you argue the f15 is gonna be hot garbage because of its cost with the airframe and avionics. Similar argument were recycled against f22 or f35. Boyd was also widely overated. Had the fighter mafia truly really gotten their way the f16a would of looked like a faster f5a. No search radar. Just guns a pair of heaters and gunsight reticule and no strike fighter configurations which in other words would have been cannon fodder.

Must read or listen to different pilots thenn.This is only the mentality I read of pilots that retired before ever putting time into "stealth" fighters .I keep hearing how stealth plus networking and systems advancements combined trump whatever the best of teen series could ever offer. Exercises against older generation don't count? By that logic neither is the f22 proven, just because it never had the opportunity to participate in an actual shooting war against a "peer" opponent ( if there even is such a thing at the present given the us military supremacy) But i think this is just a fallback of the old timers stuck fawning over the older era of aircraft because thats what they grew up with.

You only need good enough flight characteristics, if your systems are s tier excellent. The f35 seems to be a prefect example of this. It doesn't need to be f22 tier in bfm to still be deadly platform.

Yes exactly there is different way to fight on your own terms. And its quite a bit different meta today.

Yea becsuse not enough f22s were produced as intended. So the f15c was forced to soldier on longer then ever anticipated. So much so that newly produced f15ex,s have to be purchase to supplement the air superiority fleet. But even now they are more likely to just be missile trucks for gen 5 F15c would have been very dated had it not continued getting modernization in systems. Certain exercises against foreign operators only validated the need for them.

I can fight on my terms as long as I keep them at bay ( bvr) i havr no issue there. Wvr Is genuinly the only area where care about having it better just in case. Because even then it's not ideal to merge even in a f15c. Regardless of the platform it's ideal to kill anything before a merge. Even of you are flying a platform that is equipped with jhmcs and aim9x.

But this was also somewhat analogous of the f16a. There was a large focus on airframe performance initially. Something about creating the best optimized lightweight dogfighter, wheras later versions packed on more weight, less maneuverable, but had improvements in its systems and evolved to expand the strike role. The fighter mafia wanted cheap super fighters that emphasized flight characteristics, whilst ignoring the advantages of modern systems, the generals wanted a more practical fighter bombers, and took a greater interest in systems

Air superiority today is certainly more systems centric but even in it's day f15 avionics we're also a cheif selling point. Specifically The f15 airframe had a large powerfull radar. Much better then what the f16 offered, and early f16s didn't have any medium range missiles so they couldn't do bvr.